TUNICA VAGINALIS FOR CORRECTING PENILE CHORDEE IN A RABBIT MODEL: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN FLAP VERSUS GRAFT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared tunica vaginalis applied as a flap versus a graft for covering defects in the ventral tunica albuginea in a rabbit model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 18 New Zealand White rabbits in the study. The urethra was mobilized off of the corpus cavernosum. A defect was created in the ventral aspect of the tunica albuginea by excising a 1 x 0.5 cm. rectangular area. The defect was covered by the testicular surface of tunica vaginalis as a vascularized flap in 9 animals and as a graft in 9. At 2, 6 and 12-week intervals 3 animals per group were sacrificed. Transverse sections of the penis at the repair site were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and Masson's trichrome for microscopy. RESULTS: Autopsy revealed no contracture in any of the tunica vaginalis flaps. In contrast, the tunica vaginalis grafts had contracted by a mean of 22% (range 20% to 25%) at 2, 38% (range 30% to 44%) at 6 and 42% (range 38% to 48%) at 12 weeks. Microscopic examination of the tunica vaginalis flaps showed evidence of an intact blood supply and viable cremasteric muscle layer but no evidence of necrosis. Collagen remodeling and maturation was noted at 12 weeks. In tunica vaginalis grafts there was evidence of necrosis of all tunica vaginalis layers at 2 weeks with granulation tissue and active fibrosis at the periphery. At 6 and 12 weeks most necrotic tissue was replaced by fibrosis. Osseous metaplasia was identified in 1 graft at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal use of tunica vaginalis for correction of chordee is as a flap rather than as a free graft. Grafts were associated with significant necrosis and contracture, of which neither was associated with flaps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".